JUDGMENT : R.N. Mishra, J. - The sixteen Petitioners along with some others were convicted u/s 147 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Judicial, Balasore, and sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment. The learned Sessions Judge, upon appeal, acquitted some of the accused persons but so far as the Petitioners are concerned, upheld the conviction and affirmed the sentence. 2. The prosecution alleged that on 23-5-1968, the local unit of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) organised a demonstration in front of the office of the Tahasildar at Jaleswar in the District of Balesore. That there would be a mass demonstration was known from before and the Tahasildar had requisitioned the assistance of a contingent of the A.P.R. Force. The Superintendent of Police of Balasore had alerted the neighbouring police stations. In May, the Tahasildar's office was being held in the morning. By about 10 A.M. about 2,000 persons arrived at the Tahasil office, demanded the with drawal of the police force form the office area, shouted slogans, demanded food and wanted to present a charter of demands to the Tahasildar. Admittedly there was general failure of the crop in 1967 -1968 in the area owing to flood and the people of the region were hard hit. After the police were shifted to some distance, some of the demonstrators came up to the office and confined the Tahasildar and his staff within the office premises. This position continued till about 1.30 P.M. The demonstrators pressurised the Tahasildar; to call the Collector to the spot. At about 1.30 P.M. the Superintendent of Police came there and was held in confinement for about half an hour. For this part of the occurrence, a separate criminal case was instituted against the leaders of the demonstrating crowd and against their conviction a criminal revision was filed in this Court which has been recently disposed of. 3. At about 3.30 P.M. the Additional District Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Officer of Balasore arrived at the Tahasildar?s office and with their arrival the second phase of the day?s incidents started. It is alleged that the demonstrators took exception to the Revenue Officers to have come empty-handed and shouted anti-Government slogans and threatened to assault the officers and the police. Brick-batting from the crowd was answered by lathi charge by the police. The situation soon went out of control. It is alleged that the demonstrators took exception to the Revenue Officers to have come empty-handed and shouted anti-Government slogans and threatened to assault the officers and the police. Brick-batting from the crowd was answered by lathi charge by the police. The situation soon went out of control. The police personnel including the Superintendent received injuries and their vehicles were damaged by unabated brick-batting. Ultimately firing was resorted to which killed two of the demonstrators and injured many of them. On the F.I.R. lodged by the police, the accused persons were charge-sheeted after investigation for offences under Sections 147 and 307 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Judge framed the charge that the accused persons had the common object of attempting to murder the Superintendent of police but found against the prosecution in regard to this charge. He, however, convicted the Petitioners and some others u/s 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 4. The defence stand was that they had come to ventilate their grievances by peaceful demonstration. There was absolutely no occasion for resorting to lathi charge or firing. They contend that no offence was committed by them. 5. There is no dispute that there was failure of crop and wide-spread demand for food. A similar demonstration had already been held on 18-5-1968 being sponsored by the Congress party. A coalition Government of the Swatantra and Jana Congress parties was then in power in the State. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) organised this demonstration on the eventful day and came to present a charter of demands (Ext. A) to the local Revenue Officer. The learned appellate Judge has rightly concluded that the object of the demonstrations was not unlawful when they came. Citizens in this country certainly have the right to gather and hold peaceful demonstrations to air their grievances and place their lawful demands before Governmental authorities. 6. There is evidence to show that men, women and children had come in the crowd. Learned Additional Standing Counsel does not dispute the submission of Mr. Ray for the Petitioners that apart from a few who led the demonstrators, others were suffering from pangs or hunger. Admittedly they came in the morning in expectation of food. Obviously they hoped that there would be distribution of dole a usual feature in similar circumstances. Learned Additional Standing Counsel does not dispute the submission of Mr. Ray for the Petitioners that apart from a few who led the demonstrators, others were suffering from pangs or hunger. Admittedly they came in the morning in expectation of food. Obviously they hoped that there would be distribution of dole a usual feature in similar circumstances. They had demanded the coming of the Collector of the district when the Tahasildar had pleaded his helplessness to give them any food to eat. In anticipation of doles they kept on waiting and ultimately when the Additional District Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Officer arrived without any provision for them, the crowd must have become restless and a sense of frustration must have overtaken them. P.w. 1, the Police Superintendent came to the spot twice that day. The first occasion was at about 1.30 P.M. and he left at about 2 P.M. According to him, when he left the place at 2 P.M. the situation was thus: The people present there were somewhat restive but there was no violation at that time. At that time I did not apprehend any violent activity. The weather was very hot. The demonstrators were standing in the hot sun. No food was distributed in my presence. At that time I was satisfied about the police arrangements. When I left the spot, I did not apprehend that the people would be violent. The people present there were hungry, thirsty and restive...There were women and children among the demonstrators. The same witness describes the later situation thus: On arrival at the spot, the A.D.M. and the S.D.O. were surrounded by the demonstrators on the road. They went to the R.I.?s office for discussion. ... When myself, the A.D.M. and the S.D.O. arrived at the spot, the demonstrators were not violent but they were restive. At that time nobody jostled. I was not surrounded. The discussion continued for? nearly ten minutes. The A.D.M. and the S.D.O. came out after the discussion broke down. P. w. 2, the Tahasildar narrates the event following the discussion at the R.L?s office thus: While the discussion was going on one person from among the crowd came to the veranda of the R.L?s office and informed that the situation was bad and there was no point in further discussion. All of us cam out. P. w. 2, the Tahasildar narrates the event following the discussion at the R.L?s office thus: While the discussion was going on one person from among the crowd came to the veranda of the R.L?s office and informed that the situation was bad and there was no point in further discussion. All of us cam out. I saw on coming out brick - batting from the side of the crowd and lathi charge from the side of the police. This was immediately followed by firing from the side of the police. After the firing, the demonstrators dispersed. The persons who were injured were carried in the police van to the hospital. The S.D.O. thereafter promulgated an order u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure. P. w. 2 has further stated in cross-examination: There was unprecedented flood in the area in the year 1967. The crops were heavily damaged by the flood. Many houses were damaged. In the summer of 1968 there was acute shortage of rice and paddy and food articles in that area. There was an agitation for giving gratuitous relief. The agitation for such relief was going on till the end of May, 1968. It also continued for some time thereafter. On 18-5-1968, free rice was supplied to the demonstrators...The agitation that day continued from 8 A.M. till 5 P.M. After free rice was supplied, the people dispersed. Like p.w. 1, the Tahsildar also stated: After we came out of the room (R.L?s office here the discussion took place) and were on the veranda, I heard the firing sound. At that time the A.P.R. force was on the road. When we came to the road, the mob had started dispersing. P.w. 3 the Tahasildar?s head clerk does not depose about the occurrence. P.ws. 4, 5 and (3 are the police people. They speak implicating some of the Petitioners but their evidence seems counter to what the Superintendent of police has said. P.w. 7, a local cultivator does not at all support the prosecution case. Similarly p.w. 8, a local Tahasil clerk also does not add any corroboration to the evidence of the police witnesses. P.w. 10 is the S.D.O. of Balasore who came in the afternoon in the company of the A. D. M. Like-p.w. 2, this witness has said: Then all of us came outside the R.I?s office. Similarly p.w. 8, a local Tahasil clerk also does not add any corroboration to the evidence of the police witnesses. P.w. 10 is the S.D.O. of Balasore who came in the afternoon in the company of the A. D. M. Like-p.w. 2, this witness has said: Then all of us came outside the R.I?s office. I saw that heavy brick-batting was going on towards the police. I heard some people announcing over the loud speakers that police had resorted to lathi charge and the people should take revenge. During this time Nandi (an accused) who is already acquitted and his friends went inside the mob. After that I heard nearly 5 to 6 rounds of rifle fire. After sometime we came to the open space in front of the Tahasil office. By that time the mob had already gone 150 to 200 yards behind the Tahasil office. Apprehending further trouble, I promulgated order u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure. In cross-examination this witness further stated: When I arrived the crowd was in a restive need occasionally giving slogans. When I arrived, the situation was not such as would warrant promulgation of order u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure. P.w. 12. is the A.D.M. He has stated: At the time we arrived the crowd was peaceful. I went straight to the R.I.?s office. Accused Nandi went from there to call his companions. Accused Nandi and his 6 to 7 companions were in the R.I?s office till we came out of the room. When there was hulla and somebody informed that lathi charge was going on then alone I came to know about it. Immediately after getting the information, I came out to the veranda. On coming out I found the police men chasing the crowd with lathis. Immediately thereafter I heard firing sound. P.ws. 15 to 22 are all Police Officers. Their evidence is in line with the evidence of the three earlier: police witnesses. 7. I have extracted freely from the evidence of several witnesses to give a clear picture of the situation at the spot. It is evident that the Revenue Officer?s p.ws. 2, 3, 10 and 12) and the Police Superintendent (p. w 1) have narrated the situation in one manner while the police witnesses have given a very different account of the occurrence. It is evident that the Revenue Officer?s p.ws. 2, 3, 10 and 12) and the Police Superintendent (p. w 1) have narrated the situation in one manner while the police witnesses have given a very different account of the occurrence. The police people appear to have adopted an aggressive role and even resorted to firing without any Magisterial order though so many Magistrates were present at the spot, and the A.P.R. force had been placed under the control of the Tahasildar who himself is a Magistrate. Even the Police Superintendent does not state that he gave any directions to resort to lathi charge or firing. 8. The crowd was at the place from the morning. As p.w. 3 says the majority of them were ladies. There were many children. They had stood in the hot May sun during the ?entire day. They were both Hungry and thirsty as p.ws. 1 has said. They? had come with the hope that free rice would be distributed. In fact less than a week before to such a demonstrating crowd free rice had been distributed. Awaiting arrival of the senior Revenue Officers, they were lying in wait. 9. All the material and responsible Public Officers have unequivocally said that the crowd was non-violent, hungry, thirsty but? restive. If this was the situation until ? he discussion in the R.I.?s office,continued, when did the ?accused persons develop the common object of causing hurt to the police personnel and murder of the Police Superintendent? The prosecution evidence particularly of the responsible officers - both Police? and Revenue - does not admit of any scope for such common object to have developed at the spot. As the sequence of? events shows, the protectors of law and order were more to blame for what happened at the spot than the demonstrators. Advance notice was given of the demonstration. Steps could have been taken to avoid the collection of so many people at he Tahasil office. After the charter of demands was offered, the crowd should have been persuaded to go by receiving the charter without delay. The Governmental authorities were responsible in creating an impression that if demonstration is held in such manner free rice would be available for distribution. In fact, only five days-earlier that had been done. The crowd continued at the spot in anticipation of food and had suffered the scorching summer heat. The Governmental authorities were responsible in creating an impression that if demonstration is held in such manner free rice would be available for distribution. In fact, only five days-earlier that had been done. The crowd continued at the spot in anticipation of food and had suffered the scorching summer heat. They were thirsty and hungry. Yet the situation till about 5 P.M. was peaceful. The local authorities failed to realise the misfortune of the distressed crowd and assess the situation properly. While the demonstrators looked for food, and solace they were dealt with lathis blows and gun shots. 9. I have not been able to satisfy myself that any of the persons out of the crowd can be said to have been guilty of rioting. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish any unlawful common object of the accused persons - much less the acts they were charged with. The facts of the case clearly show that the situation was, not properly handled and was unnecessarily predicated leading to firing which resulted in loss of life. 10. The conviction of the Petitioners u/s 147 of Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. I, therefore, allow the revision, set aside the conviction of the Petitioners, and acquit them. Their bail bonds are cancelled.